Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

The fragmentation of molecular clouds in starburst environments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Starburst radiation yields fewer heavy cores and richer star clusters

desk verdict A careful parameter study showing top-heavy CMF/SMF under high ISRF/CRIR in low-density isolated clouds, but the starburst generalization is only partly earned because external pressure is not modelled. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03323 v1 pith:YFBVEYST submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Matt T. Cusack , Paul C. Clark , Simon C. O. Glover , Ralf S. Klessen , Philipp Girichidis , Anthony P. Whitworth , Felix D. Priestley This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords starformationmolecularcloudsstarburstgalaxiesinterstellarradiationfieldcosmicrayionisationinitialmassfunctioncorenumericalsimulations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that star formation in starburst-like environments is not a scaled-up version of star formation in the solar neighbourhood. Using hydrodynamical simulations with a coupled chemical network, the authors raise the interstellar radiation field and cosmic ray ionisation rate in steps of 10, 100, and 1000 times the local values and follow the collapse of a ten-thousand-solar-mass cloud. The extra heating raises the Jeans mass of the gas, so the cloud fragments into fewer, more massive cores; those cores then fragment into richer groups of stellar systems that accrete faster and less competitively. The result is a core mass function and a stellar system mass function that are both bottom-light and top-heavy, deviating from the standard initial mass function slope that the fiducial run reproduces. If correct, the environments where most cosmic star formation actually occurred would produce systematically different stellar populations from those seen in the Milky Way's neighbourhood.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the thermodynamic response of the gas to elevated heating, expressed through the Jeans mass (the minimum mass a region needs to overcome thermal support and collapse) and the effective Mach number of the turbulence. A stronger interstellar radiation field and cosmic ray ionisation rate heat the gas at all densities, raising the Jeans mass and making turbulent shocks less efficient at generating density structure; delayed dust-gas coupling keeps the gas warm to higher densities, and cosmic ray heating displaces photoelectric heating as the dominant heat source in the most extreme runs. These changes set the mass scale on which the cloud fragments into cores, and the larger core masses in turn set up richer fragmentation into stellar systems during collapse. The sink particles, which represent stellar systems rather than individual stars, allow the simulation to report a stellar system mass function that can be compared with observed initial mass functions.

What would settle it

A resolved core and protostellar census of a high-radiation starburst cloud, for example in the Central Molecular Zone, that found a standard power-law core mass function with abundant sub-solar cores and a steep system mass function would directly contradict the predicted top-heavy shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that raising the interstellar radiation field and cosmic ray ionisation rate together changes fragmentation in opposite senses on two scales. On the scale of cores and clumps, the warmer, higher-pressure gas resists shock compression and has a larger Jeans mass, so fewer cores form and the ones that do are heavier, shifting the core mass function to higher masses and suppressing sub-solar cores. On the scale of stellar systems, those more massive cores are more Jeans-unstable as they collapse and fragment into larger groups of sink particles, which grow rapidly through enhanced, less competitive accretion from a plentiful reservoir. The net effect is that both the core mass function and the system mass function become top-heavy, with the high-mass slope flattening from roughly the canonical power law at fiducial conditions to a distinctly shallower slope at the highest irradiation. The paper interprets this as a picture where high-$\gamma$ clouds fragment less on the scale of cores and clumps but more on the scale of stellar systems.

Load-bearing premise

The work assumes that a uniform, low-density, virialised spherical cloud with solar-neighbourhood-like turbulence stands in for the clouds of the Galactic centre and starburst galaxies, an assumption the authors explicitly flag as better matched to the solar neighbourhood than to those extreme environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The peak of the core mass function shifts upward by roughly an order of magnitude between the fiducial and the most extreme runs, while the high-mass tail of the system mass function flattens from a power-law slope near $-1.25$ to near $-0.70$.
  • Sink formation is delayed and the overall sink formation rate decreases in high-$\gamma$ clouds, because the gas is more stable against collapse on large scales even though individual cores produce richer clusters.
  • Cores in the extreme runs fragment into significantly richer embedded clusters, with median distances to the tenth nearest neighbour falling below one Jeans length, implying ten or more stellar systems per core.
  • Including cosmic ray attenuation barely changes the fiducial cloud but substantially restores low-mass core formation in the extreme cloud, showing that cosmic ray heating is a regulator of the core mass function.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the system-level top-heaviness survives when individual stars are resolved, the stellar initial mass function itself may be non-universal, which would change estimates of the stellar and metal content contributed by the galaxies that dominate cosmic star formation.
  • The combined raising of ISRF and CRIR, rather than either parameter alone, appears to be what produces the strongest effect; a natural next step would be to run a similar grid with denser, more compact initial conditions to see whether the top-heavy trend persists under Galactic-centre-like densities.
  • An observable prediction that could be tested with current interferometers is that dense-core surveys toward the Galactic centre should find fewer, more massive clumps per unit mass than in the solar neighbourhood, together with a deficit of low-mass cores.
  • The reduced rate of overall sink formation in high-$\gamma$ clouds suggests that star formation in such environments may be spread over a longer timescale or proceed more in bursts, which could affect interpretations of the star formation efficiency in starburst galaxies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents adaptive-mesh-refinement hydrodynamical simulations of isolated, virialised molecular clouds in which the interstellar radiation field (ISRF) and cosmic-ray ionisation rate (CRIR) are increased together by factors of 1, 10, 100 and 1000 relative to solar-neighbourhood values. The simulations use a modified version of arepo with the sgchem astrochemistry network, sink particles with 180 AU interaction radii, and two turbulent seeds per parameter choice, although most analysis is shown for one seed. The authors find that higher ISRF/CRIR values heat the gas and dust, delay the transition to cold molecular gas, and increase the local Jeans mass. This produces fewer but more massive cores, a bottom-light and top-heavy core mass function, richer clusters of sink particles per core, enhanced but less competitive accretion, and a top-heavy system mass function relative to the fiducial run. The fiducial run reproduces a Salpeter-like high-mass tail, which the authors use as an internal consistency check. Runs with a column-density-dependent cosmic-ray attenuation are also presented and show little effect at solar-neighbourhood values but a notable effect on the high-ISRF/CRIR core mass function. The paper concludes that star formation in high-SFR environments differs from that in the solar neighbourhood.

Significance. If the reported trend is robust, the paper provides a useful step toward understanding whether the stellar initial mass function and core mass function are universal, and it connects to observations of top-heavy mass functions in the Galactic centre and starburst regions. Its strengths are the relatively comprehensive treatment of ISRF and CRIR variations, the internal check provided by the fiducial Salpeter-like tail, the inclusion of two turbulent seeds for at least some diagnostics, and the public availability of analysis code and simulation snapshots on request. The interpretation is careful to distinguish stellar systems from individual stars and to avoid overclaiming an IMF result. However, the generality of the central conclusion is limited by the solar-neighbourhood-like initial conditions, as discussed below, and by the limited treatment of stochastic variations and unresolved substructure.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §3.1, Eq. (B1)] The central claim that high ISRF/CRIR environments produce top-heavy CMFs and SMFs rests on simulations that vary only gamma_SFR while keeping the initial density, geometry, and turbulent velocity dispersion fixed at solar-neighbourhood-like values. The manuscript itself states in §2.2 that these initial conditions are "more typical of the solar neighbourhood than of clouds in the CMZ or starbursts," yet the abstract and conclusions generalize the result to starbursts. For gas in pressure equilibrium with an external medium, the Jeans mass in Eq. (B1) scales as M_J ∝ T^(3/2) n^(-1/2) ∝ T^2 P_ext^(-1/2). CMZ and starburst clouds have external pressures orders of magnitude above the solar neighbourhood, so the higher temperatures produced by a 1000x ISRF/CRIR do not necessarily translate into larger absolute Jeans masses. The compression of the high-gamma clouds by their heated outer envelope, described in §3.1, is an internal effect of heating in an isolated, low-pressure setup rather than a realistic external confinement. This is an external-validity gap rather than an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the paper's stated goal. I recommend either restricting the conclusions to the regime actually simulated, or adding simulations with pressure-matched initial conditions (e.g., higher initial density or an external pressure term) to demonstrate how the top-heavy trend depends on P_ext at fixed gamma_SFR.
  2. [§2.2, Figures 4 and 8, Table 2] The quantitative mass-function slopes and the power-law exponents in Table 2 appear to be based on simulations with one turbulent seed for the main figures. Section 2.2 notes that results are usually shown for one seed unless strongly affected by the seed, and Figure 6 shows that the sink formation histories differ substantially between the two seeds. A trend in alpha_Fit based on a single seed per gamma value cannot be assigned a robust uncertainty, and it is possible that the ordering of the slopes could change with a different seed. Please report both seeds for the SMF and CMF fits, or explicitly state which seed is used and provide a quantitative estimate of seed-to-seed scatter, for example by showing the fit exponents from both runs in Table 2.
  3. [§2.1.1, §5.1, §7.4] The sink particles have an interaction radius of 180 AU and therefore represent stellar systems rather than individual stars, and protostellar discs are unresolved. The authors are appropriately cautious about not claiming an IMF result, but the interpretation in §5.1 and §7.2 that cores fragment into richer clusters of sinks depends on the assumption that fragmentation below the sink scale would not alter the multiplicity or the resulting system mass function. The manuscript itself acknowledges in §7.4 that some fragmentation between sink insertion and optically thick core formation may be missed. Given that the new result is a shift in the SMF and CMF, this resolution caveat should be elevated from a limitation to a tested assumption, for example by a resolution study or a sub-resolution model of disc fragmentation, or the claims about cluster richness should be softened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The caption states that outliers are omitted but does not define the outlier criterion; please specify the interquartile range or percentile rule used.
  2. [§3.2] The sentence "Fragmentation only slows when the clouds become isothermal" is ambiguous, since the clouds are roughly isothermal at high densities; rewording to "when the gas becomes isothermal again" or similar would clarify the point.
  3. [Table A1] The initial H2 abundance for gamma10 is listed as 0.363, which is higher than the fiducial value; this is plausible but worth a sentence in the text explaining why the equilibrium abundance at n=10^3 cm^-3 is not monotonic in gamma_SFR.
  4. [Appendix C] Equation (C1) is written with a piecewise definition, but the middle line appears to be missing an exponentiation operator or parentheses; please check the typesetting so the functional form is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CMF/SMF trends are measured simulation outputs, with the fiducial Salpeter agreement serving as an external consistency check rather than an imposed constraint.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that increasing the ISRF and CRIR makes core and system mass functions top-heavy—is not imposed by construction. The simulations vary only the ISRF and CRIR (Table 1) while keeping the initial cloud setup fixed, and the CMF and SMF are subsequently measured from dendrogram analysis and sink populations (Sections 4.1 and 5.2). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the high-mass power-law slopes in Table 2 are fits to the output, not inputs, and the fiducial run's agreement with Salpeter is explicitly used as a validation that the setup reproduces solar-neighbourhood conditions (Section 4.1: 'the simulation setup reproduces the observed SMF in solar neighbourhood conditions'). The Jeans-mass reasoning in Sections 3.2 and 7.1 is explanatory, and the statement that the CMF peak 'tracks well the Jeans mass' is a comparison against an independently computed quantity, not a definition of the CMF. Self-citations to sgchem, Clark et al. (2013), and Hunter et al. (2023) are standard code and parameter references; they are not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem, nor does the argument reduce to them. The paper also openly lists external-validity caveats (Section 2.2: initial conditions 'more typical of the solar neighbourhood than of clouds in the CMZ or starbursts'; Section 7.4: no radiative feedback or magnetic fields), which concern generalizability rather than circularity. The cosmic-ray attenuation runs even use an external parameterization from Padovani et al. (2018). Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and benchmarked against an external, established result, so no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The parameter study depends on several numerical and modelling choices, listed above, but the central result emerges from the simulations rather than being imposed by a fitted constant. The main external-support question is whether the chosen initial conditions and missing physics preserve the direction of the effect.

free parameters (6)
  • ISRF/CRIR scaling factors (gamma_SFR) = 10, 100, 1000 times solar neighbourhood
    Chosen to represent CMZ/starburst conditions rather than fitted to the mass functions; the combined scaling assumes ISRF and CRIR increase in lockstep.
  • Dendrogram extraction thresholds = min column density 2x10^22 cm^-2, contrast 8.3x10^21 cm^-2, min 10 pixels
    These thresholds set which structures are called cores and directly shape the core mass function, especially its low-mass end.
  • Sink particle creation density and interaction radius = 1.991e-16 g cm^-3, 180 AU
    Numerical choices governing where sinks form and how they accrete; they affect the system mass function and clustering statistics.
  • Jeans refinement criterion = 16 cells per local Jeans length
    Resolution choice needed to follow collapse; a standard but tunable numerical parameter.
  • Cloud initial conditions = M = 10^4 Msun, R = 4.10 pc, n = 10^3 cm^-3, gas 40 K, dust 15 K
    Simplified initial conditions more typical of the solar neighbourhood than of starbursts or the CMZ; all trends are measured relative to these.
  • Turbulent velocity field power spectrum exponent = P(k) ~ k^-4
    Standard turbulent driving spectrum that controls density contrasts and structure formation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The arepo moving-mesh solver and the sgchem chemical network correctly capture ISM thermodynamics in high-ISRF/CRIR regimes.
    The paper relies on these codes instead of full radiative transfer; the heating and cooling balance is the main driver of the result.
  • domain assumption Two turbulent seeds are sufficient to characterise fragmentation behaviour.
    Only two realisations per parameter set are run, and some quantities are strongly seed-dependent; most figures show only one seed.
  • domain assumption Sink particles with 180 AU radii represent stellar systems well enough for conclusions about the system mass function.
    Individual stars and protostellar discs are unresolved; the authors flag this in Section 7.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiative feedback and magnetic fields do not change the conclusions.
    Stated in Section 7.4 with qualitative arguments, but not tested with simulations including these effects.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial conditions are representative of CMZ/starburst clouds despite being solar-neighbourhood-like.
    The paper acknowledges the initial conditions are not typical of starbursts; the extrapolation depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The simple column-density-based cosmic-ray attenuation model is adequate.
    Appendix C uses a parameterisation based on Padovani et al. 2018 with a constant floor, rather than full cosmic-ray transport.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fragmentation of molecular clouds in starburst environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFBVEYST

@misc{pith2026250103323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fragmentation of molecular clouds in starburst environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFBVEYST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03323}
}
read the original abstract

A significant amount of star formation occurs and has occurred in environments unlike the solar neighbourhood. The majority of stars formed closer to the peak of the cosmic star formation rate (z > 1.3) and a great deal of star formation presently occurs in the central molecular zone (CMZ) of the Galaxy. These environments are unified by the presence of a high interstellar radiation field (ISRF) and a high cosmic ray ionisation rate (CRIR). Numerical studies of stellar birth typically neglect this fact, and those that do not have thus far been limited in scope. In this work we present the first comprehensive analysis of hydrodynamical simulations of star formation in extreme environments where we have increased the ISRF and CRIR to values typical of the CMZ and starburst galaxies. We note changes in the fragmentation behaviour on both the core and stellar system scale, leading to top-heavy core and stellar system mass functions in high ISRF/CRIR clouds. Clouds fragment less on the core scale, producing fewer but more massive cores. Conversely, the cores fragment more intensely and produce richer clusters of stellar systems. We present a picture where high ISRF/CRIR clouds fragment less on the scale of cores and clumps, but more on the scale of stellar systems. The change in fragmentation behaviour subsequently changes the mass function of the stellar systems that form through enhanced accretion rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density maps of each cloud at the onset of sink formation (the time of which is shown in the top-left corner alongside the simulation identifier). Insets show a 2x2pc region zoomed into the cloud centres. at densities below the starting density (103 cm−3 ) will be impacted by the choice of initial conditions and may not be representative of the typical ISM. Another effect of increasing 𝛾SFR is that the transi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperature-density diagrams of the clouds when the simulations were terminated. The top panel shows mass-weighted average gas (solid lines) and dust (dot-dashed lines) temperatures as a function of number density. Grey bands show lines of constant Jeans mass where the spread corresponds to the range of typical mean molecular weights in the ISM (𝜇 = 1.4 − 2.4). The mean molecular weight is likely to vary in a system… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relative heating and cooling rates included in the chemical network and their fractional importance against number density. Rates are binned into equal width bins of number density and a mass-weighted average rate is found for each bin/rate. The rates are then normalised to account for the changing sum of raw rate values with number density. Rates are coloured depending on whether they heat (reds and oranges), c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The sink particle mass function of each simulation in histogram and cumulative form. The distributions are sampled when all simulations have reached 3,000 M⊙ in total sink mass. The dashed lines in the left panels are the Salpeter power-law with exponent 𝛼 = −1.35 (Sal…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the distances to a sinks 1st, 5th and 10th nearest neighbour at the time of its formation. There is thus no data for the first 10 sinks that formed. Outliers are omitted, and the whiskers show the 5th to 95th percentiles of the data. the time of its fo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The sink formation rate through time for each of the simulations. The formation rate is calculated as a rolling mean of the change in total sink mass, d𝑀/d𝑡, using a window of 50,000 years. The properties of sink particles are reported every 100 years, so each window c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The mass distribution of cores just before the onset of sink formation in each cloud. Left hand panels show histograms of the core masses with the number of cores identified in the top-left. The right hand panel shows the cumulative distribution of core masses. Results…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    E., Whitworth A

    Ambrose H. E., Whitworth A. P., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae2556 , 535, 3700

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2556 2024

  3. [3]

    Ao Y., et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220096 , 550, A135

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220096 2013

  4. [4]

    I., Leer E., Skadron G., 1977, in Cosmophysics

    Axford W. I., Leer E., Skadron G., 1977, in Cosmophysics. pp 125--134

    1977

  5. [5]

    S., Mac Low M

    Ballesteros-Paredes J., Klessen R. S., Mac Low M. M., Vazquez-Semadeni E., 2007, Protostars and Planets V . p63. University of Arizona Press, Tucson

    2007

  6. [7]

    W., Pérez-Goytia N., Kuznetsova A., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1285 , 452, 566

    Ballesteros-Paredes J., Hartmann L. W., Pérez-Goytia N., Kuznetsova A., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1285 , 452, 566

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1285 2015

  7. [11]

    R., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu795 , 442, 285

    Bate M. R., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu795 , 442, 285

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu795 2014

  8. [12]

    R., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz103 , 484, 2341

    Bate M. R., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz103 , 484, 2341

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz103 2019

Show all 114 references
  1. [14]

    R., Bonnell I

    Bate M. R., Bonnell I. A., Price N. M., 1995, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 , 277, 362

    1995 doi

  2. [15]

    R., 1978a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , 182, 147

    Bell A. R., 1978a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , 182, 147

    doi

  3. [16]

    R., 1978b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443 , 182, 443

    Bell A. R., 1978b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443 , 182, 443

    doi

  4. [17]

    C., Glover S

    Bertelli Motta C., Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., Pasquali A., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1921 , 462, 4171

    2016 doi

  5. [18]

    G., Papadopoulos P

    Bisbas T. G., Papadopoulos P. P., Viti S., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/37 , 803, 37

    2015 doi

  6. [19]

    D., Ostriker J

    Blandford R. D., Ostriker J. P., 1978, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/182658 , 221, L29

    1978 doi

  7. [20]

    A., Vine S

    Bonnell I. A., Vine S. G., Bate M. R., 2004, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07543.x , 349, 735

    2004

  8. [21]

    A., Clark P., Bate M

    Bonnell I. A., Clark P., Bate M. R., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13679.x , 389, 1556

    2008

  9. [22]

    A., Smith R

    Bonnell I. A., Smith R. J., Clark P. C., Bate M. R., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17603.x , 410, 2339

    2011

  10. [23]

    Cazaux S., Spaans M., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/422087 , 611, 40

    2004 doi

  11. [24]

    Chabrier G., Hennebelle P., Charlot S., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/75 , 796, 75

    2014 doi

  12. [25]

    C., Glover S

    Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1369 , 452, 2057

    2015 doi

  13. [26]

    C., Whitworth A

    Clark P. C., Whitworth A. P., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa3176 , 500, 1697

    2021 doi

  14. [27]

    C., Glover S

    Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Smith R. J., Greif T. H., Klessen R. S., Bromm V., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1198027 , 331, 1040

    2011 doi

  15. [28]

    C., Glover S

    Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Ragan S. E., Shetty R., Klessen R. S., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L34 , 768, L34

    2013 doi

  16. [29]

    C., Glover S

    Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Ragan S. E., Duarte-Cabral A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1119 , 486, 4622

    2019 doi

  17. [31]

    E., Ngoumou J., Ercolano B., Bonnell I

    Dale J. E., Ngoumou J., Ercolano B., Bonnell I. A., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt1822 , 436, 3430

    2013 doi

  18. [32]

    E., Ngoumou J., Ercolano B., Bonnell I

    Dale J. E., Ngoumou J., Ercolano B., Bonnell I. A., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu816 , 442, 694

    2014 doi

  19. [33]

    E., Ercolano B., Bonnell I

    Dale J. E., Ercolano B., Bonnell I. A., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv913 , 451, 987

    2015 doi

  20. [34]

    E., Kruijssen J

    Dale J. E., Kruijssen J. M. D., Longmore S. N., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz888 , 486, 3307

    2019 doi

  21. [35]

    I., Sternberg A., Lehnert M., Tacconi-Garman L

    Davies R. I., Sternberg A., Lehnert M., Tacconi-Garman L. E., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/378634 , 597, 907

    2003 doi

  22. [36]

    E., Rieke G

    De Rossi M. E., Rieke G. H., Shivaei I., Bromm V., Lyu J., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaebf8 , 869, 4

    2018 doi

  23. [37]

    Dib S., Schmeja S., Hony S., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2465 , 464, 1738

    2017 doi

  24. [38]

    Dopcke G., Glover S. C. O., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/103 , 766, 103

    2013 doi

  25. [39]

    T., 1978, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/190513 , 36, 595

    Draine B. T., 1978, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/190513 , 36, 595

    1978 doi

  26. [40]

    Duchêne G., Kraus A., 2013, @doi [A&ARv] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 , 51, 269

    2013 doi

  27. [41]

    S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M

    Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M. M., 2010a, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , 512, A81

    doi

  28. [42]

    C., Klessen R

    Federrath C., Banerjee R., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., 2010b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/269 , 713, 269

    doi

  29. [43]

    Ginsburg A., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526100 , 586, A50

    2016 doi

  30. [46]

    Girichidis P., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2742 , 456, 3432

    2016 doi

  31. [47]

    Girichidis P., Pfrommer C., Hanasz M., Naab T., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz2961 , 491, 993

    2020 doi

  32. [48]

    Girichidis P., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3462 , 510, 3917

    2022 doi

  33. [49]

    Girichidis P., Werhahn M., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3628 , 527, 10897

    2024 doi

  34. [50]

    Glover S. C. O., Clark P. C., 2012a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19648.x , 421, 9

    2011

  35. [52]

    C., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/120 , 729, 120

    Gong H., Ostriker E. C., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/120 , 729, 120

    2011 doi

  36. [53]

    C., Wolfire M

    Gong M., Ostriker E. C., Wolfire M. G., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7561 , 843, 38

    2017 doi

  37. [54]

    A., Rosolowsky E

    Goodman A. A., Rosolowsky E. W., Borkin M. A., Foster J. B., Halle M., Kauffmann J., Pineda J. E., 2009, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature07609 , 457, 63

    2009 doi

  38. [55]

    H., Springel V., White S

    Greif T. H., Springel V., White S. D. M., Glover S. C. O., Clark P. C., Smith R. J., Klessen R. S., Bromm V., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/75 , 737, 75

    2011 doi

  39. [56]

    Y., Hopkins P

    Guszejnov D., Grudić M. Y., Hopkins P. F., Offner S. S. R., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab278 , 502, 3646

    2021 doi

  40. [57]

    Y., Offner S

    Guszejnov D., Grudić M. Y., Offner S. S. R., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Rosen A. L., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2060 , 515, 4929

    2022 doi

  41. [58]

    N., Offner S

    Guszejnov D., Raju A. N., Offner S. S. R., Grudić M. Y., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Rosen A. L., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3268 , 518, 4693

    2023 doi

  42. [59]

    J., 1968, Bull

    Habing H. J., 1968, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 19, 421

    1968

  43. [60]

    Hennebelle P., Chabrier G., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/589916 , 684, 395

    2008 doi

  44. [61]

    Hennebelle P., Chabrier G., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1428 , 702, 1428

    2009 doi

  45. [62]

    Hennebelle P., Inutsuka S.-i., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00005 , 6, 5

    2019

  46. [63]

    Hennebelle P., Commerçon B., Lee Y.-N., Chabrier G., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfab , 904, 194

    2020 doi

  47. [64]

    Hennebelle P., et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243803 , 668, A147

    2022 doi

  48. [65]

    D., Barnes A

    Henshaw J. D., Barnes A. T., Battersby C., Ginsburg A., Sormani M. C., Walker D. L., 2023, Protostars and Planets VII , p83. Astronomical Society of the Pacific

    2023

  49. [66]

    K., Goodwin S

    Holman K., Walch S. K., Goodwin S. P., Whitworth A. P., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt705 , 432, 3534

    2013 doi

  50. [67]

    F., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20731.x , 423, 2037

    Hopkins P. F., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20731.x , 423, 2037

    2012

  51. [68]

    Hosek Jr. M. W., Lu J. R., Anderson J., Najarro F., Ghez A. M., Morris M. R., Clarkson W. I., Albers S. M., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef90 , 870, 44

    2019 doi

  52. [69]

    A., Stacy A., Bromm V., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1127 , 460, 2432

    Hummel J. A., Stacy A., Bromm V., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1127 , 460, 2432

    2016 doi

  53. [70]

    H., Clark P

    Hunter G. H., Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3751 , 519, 4152

    2023 doi

  54. [71]

    M., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cc , 876, 141

    Imara N., Faesi C. M., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cc , 876, 141

    2019 doi

  55. [72]

    J., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/91 , 745, 91

    Indriolo N., McCall B. J., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/91 , 745, 91

    2012 doi

  56. [73]

    K., Klessen R

    Jappsen A. K., Klessen R. S., Larson R. B., Li Y., Mac Low M. M., 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042178 , 435, 611

    2005 doi

  57. [74]

    H., 1902, @doi [Philos

    Jeans J. H., 1902, @doi [Philos. T. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A] 10.1098/rsta.1902.0012 , 199, 1

    1902

  58. [75]

    S., Glover S

    Klessen R. S., Glover S. C. O., 2016, @doi [Saas-Fee Advanced Course] 10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5_2 , 43, 85

    2016 doi

  59. [76]

    S., Ballesteros-Paredes J., Vázquez-Semadeni E., Durán-Rojas C., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/427255 , 620, 786

    Klessen R. S., Ballesteros-Paredes J., Vázquez-Semadeni E., Durán-Rojas C., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/427255 , 620, 786

    2005 doi

  60. [77]

    S., Spaans M., Jappsen A.-K., 2007, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00258.x , 374, L29

    Klessen R. S., Spaans M., Jappsen A.-K., 2007, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00258.x , 374, L29

    2007

  61. [78]

    Kruijssen J. M. D., Longmore S. N., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt1634 , 435, 2598

    2013 doi

  62. [79]

    R., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/503771 , 641, L45

    Krumholz M. R., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/503771 , 641, L45

    2006 doi

  63. [80]

    R., Klein R

    Krumholz M. R., Klein R. I., McKee C. F., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/71 , 754, 71

    2012 doi

  64. [81]

    R., Crocker R

    Krumholz M. R., Crocker R. M., Xu S., Lazarian A., Rosevear M. T., Bedwell-Wilson J., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa493 , 493, 2817

    2020 doi

  65. [82]

    R., Crocker R

    Krumholz M. R., Crocker R. M., Sampson M. L., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2712 , 517, 1355

    2022 doi

  66. [83]

    R., Crocker R

    Krumholz M. R., Crocker R. M., Offner S. S. R., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad459 , 520, 5126

    2023 doi

  67. [84]

    F., 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306

    Krymskii G. F., 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306

    1977

  68. [85]

    B., 1973, Fundamentals Cosmic Phys., 1, 1

    Larson R. B., 1973, Fundamentals Cosmic Phys., 1, 1

    1973

  69. [86]

    B., 1981, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 , 194, 809

    Larson R. B., 1981, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 , 194, 809

    1981 doi

  70. [87]

    B., 1995, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/272.1.213 , 272, 213

    Larson R. B., 1995, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/272.1.213 , 272, 213

    1995 doi

  71. [88]

    B., 2005, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08881.x , 359, 211

    Larson R. B., 2005, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08881.x , 359, 211

    2005

  72. [89]

    Le Petit F., Ruaud M., Bron E., Godard B., Roueff E., Languignon D., Le Bourlot J., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526658 , 585, A105

    2016 doi

  73. [90]

    Lee Y.-N., Hennebelle P., Chabrier G., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa898f , 847, 114

    2017 doi

  74. [91]

    S., Mac Low M.-M., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/375780 , 592, 975

    Li Y., Klessen R. S., Mac Low M.-M., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/375780 , 592, 975

    2003 doi

  75. [92]

    Li Z.-Y., Wang P., Abel T., Nakamura F., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L26 , 720, L26

    2010 doi

  76. [93]

    P., Hubber D

    Lomax O., Whitworth A. P., Hubber D. A., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv310 , 449, 662

    2015 doi

  77. [94]

    R., Do T., Ghez A

    Lu J. R., Do T., Ghez A. M., Morris M. R., Yelda S., Matthews K., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/155 , 764, 155

    2013 doi

  78. [95]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , 52, 415

    2014 doi

  79. [96]

    A., Clarke C

    Maschberger T., Bonnell I. A., Clarke C. J., Moraux E., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt2403 , 439, 234

    2014 doi

  80. [97]

    S., Federrath C., Seta A., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3415 , 518, 5190

    Mathew S. S., Federrath C., Seta A., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3415 , 518, 5190

    2023 doi

  81. [98]

    Motte F., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41550-018-0452-x , 2, 478

    2018 doi

  82. [99]

    Ntormousi E., Hennebelle P., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834094 , 625, A82

    2019 doi

  83. [100]

    Offner S. S. R., Clark P. C., Hennebelle P., Bastian N., Bate M. R., Hopkins P. F., Moraux E., Whitworth A. P., 2014, Protostars and Planets VI . p53. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, eprint: arXiv:1312.5326

    2014 arXiv

  84. [101]

    Offner S. S. R., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2734 , 517, 885

    2022 doi

  85. [102]

    V., Galli D., Caselli P., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732202 , 614, A111

    Padovani M., Ivlev A. V., Galli D., Caselli P., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732202 , 614, A111

    2018 doi

  86. [103]

    Padovani M., et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142560 , 658, A189

    2022 doi

  87. [104]

    Palau A., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1834 , 453, 3785

    2015 doi

  88. [105]

    P., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/226 , 720, 226

    Papadopoulos P. P., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/226 , 720, 226

    2010 doi

  89. [106]

    P., Thi W.-F., 2013, in Cosmic Rays in Star - Forming Environments

    Papadopoulos P. P., Thi W.-F., 2013, in Cosmic Rays in Star - Forming Environments . Springer, p. 41

    2013

  90. [107]

    S., Mac Low M.-M., Banerjee R., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/134 , 725, 134

    Peters T., Klessen R. S., Mac Low M.-M., Banerjee R., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/134 , 725, 134

    2010 doi

  91. [108]

    D., Clark P

    Priestley F. D., Clark P. C., Whitworth A. P., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad150 , 519, 6392

    2023 doi

  92. [109]

    W., Pineda J

    Rosolowsky E. W., Pineda J. E., Kauffmann J., Goodman A. A., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/587685 , 679, 1338

    2008 doi

  93. [110]

    Rowlands K., Wild V., Nesvadba N., Sibthorpe B., Mortier A., Lehnert M., da Cunha E., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu2714 , 448, 258

    2015 doi

  94. [111]

    E., 1955, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/145971 , 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/145971 , 121, 161

    1955 doi

  95. [112]

    R., Howk J

    Sembach K. R., Howk J. C., Ryans R. S. I., Keenan F. P., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/308173 , 528, 310

    2000 doi

  96. [113]

    C., Li R., Zhuang M.-Y., Xie Y., Li Z., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf21a , 870, 104

    Shangguan J., Ho L. C., Li R., Zhuang M.-Y., Xie Y., Li Z., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf21a , 870, 104

    2019 doi

  97. [114]

    A., Kratter K

    Smullen R. A., Kratter K. M., Offner S. S. R., Lee A. T., Chen H. H.-H., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2253 , 497, 4517

    2020 doi

  98. [115]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    2010

  99. [116]

    J., Geis N., Genzel R., Lugten J

    Stacey G. J., Geis N., Genzel R., Lugten J. B., Poglitsch A., Sternberg A., Townes C. H., 1991, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/170062 , 373, 423

    1991 doi

  100. [117]

    G., Sormani M

    Treß R. G., Sormani M. C., Smith R. J., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., Mac Low M.-M., Clark P., Duarte-Cabral A., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab1683 , 505, 5438

    2021 doi

  101. [118]

    C., Jappsen A

    Vázquez-Semadeni E., Gómez G. C., Jappsen A. K., Ballesteros-Paredes J., González R. F., Klessen R. S., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/510771 , 657, 870

    2007 doi

  102. [119]

    Walch S., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1975 , 454, 238

    2015 doi

  103. [120]

    P., Priestley F

    Whitworth A. P., Priestley F. D., Wünsch R., Palouš J., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae766 , 529, 3712

    2024 doi

  104. [121]

    Wild V., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa674 , 494, 529

    2020 doi

  105. [122]

    G., McKee C

    Wolfire M. G., McKee C. F., Hollenbach D., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/368016 , 587, 278

    2003 doi

  106. [123]

    Zhou J.-X., Li G.-X., Chen B.-Q., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae376 , 529, 1091

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.